PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

IGNAS 412 SCRA 371 (2003)

Basic Principle: PROSPECTIVITY| September 30, 2003 | QUISUMBING, J.

Nature of Case: Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstance

Digest Maker: Gianna Bitancor

FACTS:

In the amended decision dated June 2, 1999, the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 8, found
appellant June Ignas guilty of murder aggravated especially by the use of an unlicensed firearm. Initially, Ignas was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. However, after the prosecution filed a motion for
reconsideration, the penalty was upgraded to death by lethal injection. The victim was Nemesio Lopate, a man who
was revealed to be the paramour of his wife.

Prosecution witnesses Annie Bayanes and Marlon Manis claimed to have seen the gunman’s profile and identified
the gunman as June Ignas, based on his gait and build. Mona Barredo, another prosecution witness, testified that the
appellant came to her residence at Pico, La Trinidad, and asked her to dispose of the handgun’s empty shells out the
window. Barredos complied because of nervousness. The police investigators later recovered the spent gun shells
from Barredos’ sweet potato garden. When the appellant was brought in for questioning, he admitted to prosecution
witnesses, Julio Bayacsan, his friend, Pauline Gumpic, the victim’s sister, and SPO4 Arthur Bomagao, that he had
shot and killed Nemesio. However, he later on denied these statements and claimed that he was baking bread in
Kayapa, Nueva Vizcaya when the crime had occurred. This alibi was corroborated by Ben Anoma, his business
partner.

The appellant was found guilty of murder. Both prosecution and defense filed their respective motions for
reconsideration. The prosecution sought the imposition of the death penalty while the defense sought acquittal on the
ground of reasonable doubt.

ISSUES/RATIO:

1. Whether or not the nature of the crime committed was murder.

NO. 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the qualifying and aggravating circumstances
must be specifically alleged in the information. Circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and nocturnity
were absent. Thus, the amended information for which the appellant was charged and arraigned, at best, indicts him
only for the crime of homicide.

2. Whether or not the the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt.

YES. Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict if (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts
from which inferences are derived and are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances in this case, as provided by the witnesses, clearly
show that the appellant had the motive, the opportunity, and the means to commit the crime at the place and time in
question. The court then finds that the prosecution’s evidence suffices to sustain the appellant’s conviction for
homicide.
 3. Whether or not the penalty prescribed is correct.

NO. Since the appellant is only convicted of homicide, he may only be sentenced to suffer reclusion
temporal, as stated in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Since mitigating circumstances for the offense of
homicide are absent, the penalty imposed on the appellant, under Art. 64 of the revised Penal code, is reclusion
temporal in its medium period, with the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

4. Whether or not the damages awarded was not excessive.

YES. The amount of loss must not only be capable of proof but must actually be proven with reasonable
degree of certainty. The records show in this case that only the amount of 7,000 as funeral expenses was duly
supported by a receipt. Thus the award of actual damages should be limited only to 7,000 instead of 150,000. The
trial court also took note of the factors, average annual net income of the Lapote couple, in computing for the amount
needed to pay the loss of earning capacity. The computation only resulted to Php 1,020,000 instead of the previous
Php 2,040,000.

RULING:

The Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 8, in Criminal Case No. 95-CR-2522 is MODIFIED as
follows:

Appellant June Ignas is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of HOMICIDE as defined and
penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. He is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prison mayor as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of
reclusion temporal as maximum. Appellant June Ignas is ORDERED TO PAY the heirs of the victim, Nemesio
Lopate, the following sums: a) Php 7,000 as actual damages; b) 1,020,000 for loss of earning capacity; c) Php
50,000 as civil indemnity; d) Php 25,000 as temperate damages; and e) Php 20,000 as attorneys’ fee. Costs de
oficio.